In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002141
Date of Hearing : November 17, 2011
Date of Decision : November 17, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri. Ajit Kar
99 Satyaniketan (FF)
New Delhi 110 021
The Applicant was present during the hearing
Respondents
Delhi Power Company Limited
2nd floor, PreFabricated Building
Rajghat Power House
New Delhi
Represented by : Shri. Kamal Kishore, PIO & DGM (Corporate Services)
Ms.poonam Taneja, Appellate Authority and DGM(F)
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002141
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.20.5.11 with the PIO, DPC seeking information against ten
points including the copy of GNCTD Notification No.F11(93)/2003/power/2291 dt.12.9.07 and also
seeking access to any other notification made by the GNCTD authorizing the BSES to act in
connection with supply of electricity to the public in Delhi. Shri. R.K.verma, PIO replied on 8.6.11
stating that information sought is not specific and requesting the Applicant to be specific so that copy
of MoU or agreement can be furnished. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal
dt.4.7.11 with the Appellate Authority. Ms.Poonam Taneja, Appellate Authority replied on 1.8.11
upholding the decision of the PIO. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second
appeal dt.27.8.11 before CIC.
Decision
2. During the hearing, Appellant sought copies of agreements and of MOUs as indicated by him in his
RTI application. The Respondent replied that there are no MoUs available with the Public
Authority and that the agreements entered into by the Public Authority with various organizations
are spread over a number of files and also refer to a larger number of subject matters . She further
stated that since the agreements are subject specific and also since the year for which the
information is being sought has not been specified by the Appellant, it is not possible to provide the
information u/s7(9) of the RTI Act, as doing so will disproportionately divert the resources of the
Public Authority. The Appellant however insisted that he requires information against all subjects and
for the whole period from the time the Company (Public Authority) came into existence. He also
stated that he is willing to pay additional fees for all the documents.
3. Pursuant to discussions which followed it was decided that the Public Authority will provide the
Appellant with a list of files that are available with them so that the Appellant can then select from
them the files which he wishes to inspect. The PIO may then , if required, sever u/s 10(1) of the RTII
Act any information, from the files which are identified for inspection, which is exempt from disclosure
under any of the sub clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act and provide copies of agreements
thereafter as identified by the Appellant on payment of Rs.2/ per page as photocopying charges, by
the Appellant . The entire exercise to be completed by 20.12.11 and the Appellant to submit a
compliance report to the Commission by 27.12.11.
4. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri. Ajit Kar
99 Satyaniketan (FF)
New Delhi 110 021
2. The Public Information Officer
Delhi Power Company Limited
2nd floor, PreFabricated Building
Rajghat Power House
New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority
Delhi Power Company Limited
2nd floor, PreFabricated Building
Rajghat Power House
New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the
Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving
(1) copy of RTIapplication, (2) copy of the Commission’s decision, and (3) any other documents which he/she
considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may indicate, what
information has not been provided.
